Prof Reza Sanaye Posted March 10, 2021 Share Posted March 10, 2021 quote from iNow : " No. It was a singularity such as those predicted at the center of BHs, but was not from a BH itself. " Singularities have little meaning in maths , let alone in truly objective physix. Big bang seems to be very scarcely different from Creationism ....... The two are intrinsically the same .... __________________________________________________________________ quote from Migl : " There is no upper limit on BH size. There is only a limit to how much you can feed them. Once they 'eat' all close by mass via their accretion disc, they can't overcome farther out stable orbiting material, and stop growing. Direct collapse, however,without going through star lifetimes, is a totally different mechanism." Seems more like a fable . . .these so-called Mechanisms . . . Least to say : they are not mathematically supportable........specially in this order .......... _______________________________________________________________________________________ quote from Migl : " Dark Matter particles may get very close to each other, or even collide, but, since they don't interact via the color force, they will not clump together like quarks in nucleons, or protons and neutrons n the nucleus due to residual. And since they don't interact electromagnetically, they won't clump like electrons and protons in atoms." Do Dark Particles real exist ? Too far-fetched a story.......Even hypothetically .............. had better ( and more reasonable ) do without them ........... -4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts